Photo of Adrian Perry

Adrian Perry

Clients in a variety of industries engage Adrian Perry in matters relating to the licensing, acquisition, development, sale, use, and commercial exploitation of intellectual property, technology and data. Mr. Perry has particular expertise advising clients with respect to content licensing and distribution issues, including through digital and mobile platforms, and advising clients in sports, entertainment and media with respect to their technology transactions. A musician who has toured internationally, Mr. Perry brings to his legal practice significant experience in the entertainment and media industries. He has licensed his music for film and television, worked as an A&R consultant for a major record label for several years, and has experience in television production, spending two years working for a late night network comedy show. In addition to stand-alone intellectual property and technology transactions, Mr. Perry has advised clients on the intellectual property, privacy and technology aspects of private equity, M&A, joint venture, financing, and other corporate transactions. Mr. Perry is also a certified information privacy professional (CIPP/US).

Courts continue to grapple with how to apply existing privacy laws to new (and even not-so-new) technology. The recent Ninth Circuit decision, affirming the Northern District of California’s decision to dismiss a proposed class action suit against Pandora for disclosure of listener music preferences in violation of Michigan’s Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (PPPA), resolved the narrow question before it while explicitly leaving others open. Although Pandora can continue to disclose listener preference data publicly, subject to its Terms of Use, the decision leaves unsettled how broadly this right could apply, and how current and future technologies could impact that right.

After certifying to the Michigan Supreme Court the questions of whether Pandora is in the business of “renting” or “lending” sound recordings, and if the plaintiff  (Peter Deacon) is a “customer” of Pandora under the PPPA, the Ninth Circuit adopted the Michigan court’s interpretation that Pandora, through its free, ad-supported service, is not in the business of renting or lending sound recordings and that Deacon is not a customer under the PPPA.
Continue Reading Users of Pandora’s Free Service Are Not Customers Under Michigan Privacy Statute, But Questions Remain